The book 'Leo Frank Case', was an outgrowth of a PhD thesis paper, written by Leonard Dinnerstein (Born May 5, 1934), who completed his dissertation on the subject of the Leo Frank Case in 1966 at Columbia University for the Political Science Department.
The book 'Leo Frank Case' has slowly evolved over the last 50 years with the release of revised editions. It was published first with the Columbia University Press, 1968; a paperback edition was later released through University of Georgia Press, 1987, 1999. A high production value version of the book was produced as the Notable Trials Library edition, 1991, with information about the Alonzo Mann Affair (1913, 1982 to 1986). A recent revised edition was published in 2008, and it is likely future editions will be published.
An Intellectual Movement of Pseudo-History
There is only one problem though. Unfortunately, even after 50 years of studying and re-publishing new book editions and producing various articles on the Leo Frank case, Leonard Dinnerstein is giving the reader only a narrow, biased and short sighted version of the Leo Frank trial, appeals and aftermath.
Leo Frank's 1913 conviction for the murder of Mary Phagan has always been a very divisive, and hot-button issue, with camps typically divided and crystallized along diametrically opposed Jewish and Gentile camps.
The Jewish Community has gone to promethean lengths over the last century to rehabilitate the image of Leo Frank and exonerate him in the collective consciousness of popular culture through every kind of medium and media outlet.
The Gentile Position on Leo Frank
Gentiles often take the position that Leo Frank made an admission at his trial on August 18, 1913, sustaining his conviction, well beyond a reasonable doubt, thus the death sentence rendered against him was correct.
Many Gentiles believe Leo Frank was justly hanged when he was executed on the morning of Tuesday, August 17, 1915, for the strangulation of Mary Phagan, but the Jewish Community believes the lynching of Leo Frank was conducted because of anti-Semitism.
Leo Frank Lynching: Justice or Anti-Semitism
The execution of Leo Frank was conducted against the backdrop of a death sentence commutation to life in prison, ordered by the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John Marshall Slaton, on June 21, 1915. Gentiles believe the execution of Leo Frank two months later was conducted with a legitimate hanging, because Governor Slaton was a senior member and part owner of the law firm 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips', the elite legal team that represented Leo Frank at his summer of 1913 trial and subsequent appeals, thus making Slaton's order of clemency disqualified. The gross conflict of interest enraged the public to a fevered pitch.
The Jewish Position on the Leo Frank Case
For the last century, the vast majority of Jews have taken the "politically correct position" on the Leo Frank affair, that Leo was an innocent and stoic Jew framed in a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy as a result of an innately prejudiced and racist culture of the South united against Jews. Furthermore, the Jewish contemporary version of the Leo Frank case takes the position that ultimately Leo Frank's admitted accomplice-after-the-fact, a semi-literate janitor, named James "Jim" Conley, was really guilty of the murder, duped the White Gentiles and framed the well educated, clean cut and Ivy League educated Leo Frank. Jewish Historians and authors for more than a century have created a Leo Frank intellectual movement claiming the lynching of Leo Frank was mostly animated by blind hatred and anti-Semitism.
If Perception is Reality, The Media Rules
By Media agitation the Jewish position on the Leo Frank Case has become the "politically correct" and popular culture version of what allegedly happened between 1913 and 1915 during the Mary Phagan murder investigation, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury Hearing, murder trial, appeals and aftermath.
The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein
Indeed, this particular book by Leonard Dinnerstein on the Leo Frank saga can be said to be clearly written on behalf of Leo Frank and takes the position that he was framed because of prevalent anti-semitism endemic in the fabric of Western Civilization. Leonard Dinnerstein could easily be considered one of the godfathers of the Leo Frank Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory Intellectual Movement, because he spent 50 years publishing and republishing his opinions supporting and promoting the Jewish victim position on the Leo Frank affair. The high prevalence of Jews academically pushing the Leo Frank victim of anti-Semitism conspiracy theory, has resulted in this political position becoming mainstream by the sheer numerical force of numerical publications. This is how the 'Leo Frank Intellectual Movement' works in changing the opinions of the masses against every level of the United States legal system.
This political position on Leo Frank by Leonard Dinnerstein has been the rallying position taken privately and publicly by the Jewish community since 1913, and is often reflected in countless academic and scholarly works produced on the case by authors who reference Dinnerstein as a reliable source.
The "Jewish position" however is in direct conflict with the "Gentile position" along with every level of the United States legal system, which ruled the trial was fair and provided testimony along with the evidence against Leo Frank was more than sufficient to convict him. No government tribunal ever called to review the Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1986 has disturbed the verdict of guilt rendered unanimously against Leo Frank by the presiding trial Judge Leonard Strickland Roan and a Jury of 12 men.
What Convicted Leo Frank is an Incriminating Admission
Most open minded people who read and study the 1913 trial brief of evidence are able to connect the dots between State's Exhibit B, concerning when Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived in his office 12:07 p.m., the testimony of Monteen Stover about Leo Frank's office being empty between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m., and Leo Frank's August 18, 1913, trial statement directly responding to Monteen Stover's testimony about why his [Leo Frank's] office was empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. with an "unconscious" bathroom visit to the metal room. Oddly enough, Leo Frank put himself alone at scene of the crime, at the time the murder was committed, but then continued to claim innocence.
Alas, the major problem of the pro-Frank revisionist position taken by some authors is they are unable to maintain the "Jewish position on Leo Frank" and also provide a clear picture about the specific details of the case, because many incidents documented during the Mary Phagan murder investigation were highly incriminating of Leo Frank.
The Leo Frank Intellectual Movement
When reading books about Leo Frank that take the pro-Frank partisan revisionist ideology, they tend to leave out volumes of facts, evidence, situations, incidents and testimony that were documented in the official legal records against Leo Frank, and replace them instead with rumors, misrepresentations, hoaxes, half-truths and fabrications. You never get the full story of what really happened when you read a book on the Leo Frank case that takes the position Leo Frank was innocent.
The Biggest Leo Frank Hoax Perpetuated by the Leo Frank Intellectual Movement
In 1964 Pierre van Paassen published a dramatic hoax in his book of tall tales and fantastic adventures, 'To Number Our Days' about discovering X-ray Photos of Mary Phagan with bite marks on her neck, and left shoulder, and corresponding X-ray photographs of Leo Frank's teeth that did not match the bite marks.
Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen's discovery of photographic evidence, pages 237 and 238:
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....
The 1964 Pierre van Paassen hoax is one example of the many frauds perpetuated by the Leo Frank Intellectual Movement of Pro Leo Frank authors including Harry Golden, Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald E. Wilkes, Jeffrey Paul Melnick and others (see: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen
, 1964, p. 237 & 238).
The problem resulting from trying to maintain the integrity of the pro-frank revisionist position on the Leo Frank trial and appeals, is that in doing so, one is unable to explore the curious and interesting depths of the official record. The facts, evidence and testimony in the case appear to be intentionally omitted by people perpetuating the "Jewish Position", because these censored elements tend to sustain the conviction of Leo Frank.
Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity
The Leo Frank Case (1966) PhD Dissertation: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation
The Leo Frank Case Book (published 1968 and thereafter): http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein
To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen
Leo Frank Case Georgia Supreme Court Case File
(1,800 pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914
Learn about the Leo Frank trial and appeals by Professor Allen Koenigsberg of Brooklyn College: http://www.LeoFrankCase.com
Please fact check Leonard Dinnerstein's writings about the Leo Frank case using the primary and secondary sources below. What facts about the case did he leave out? What important facts were falsified? What claims are erroneous? Please write about and publish your research findings. Use the primary and secondary sources below in your research.
The most reliable primary and secondary sources about Mary Phagan's murder, Leo Frank's trial, appeals and aftermath
1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan
by Mary Phagan Kean (b. June 5, 1954) was written by the namesake and grandniece of Mary Phagan (1899 - 1913) -- the little girl who was murdered on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, April 26, 1913. Phagan-Kean produces a rare neutral account of the Mary Phagan murder investigation, coroner's inquest, grandjury indictment, and trial of Leo Frank, including the appeals (1913-1915) and aftermath of the case (1982-1986), that is engaging and well worth reading. Phagan-Kean's book is a very refreshing change from the endless number of contemporary books written by Leo Frank activists over the generations who quote and plagiarize other Leo Frank activists' academic dishonesty and falsified research, to create an artificial consensus of history that Leo Frank was innocent. For more than one hundred years Leo Frank activists have relied upon using fallacious evidence and fabrication about the Leo Frank case to racistly transform the 1913 affair into an anti-Gentile ethno-religious conspiracy.
2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Davison Lawson LLD
(Available here on www.Archive.org
) the review tends to favor Leo Frank and his legal defense team, because the document provides an abridged version of the trial testimony, redacting and leaving out some very important details damaging to Leo Frank.
Be sure to read the abridged closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey, Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold. A chronology of Leo Frank's appeals is also included. The last segment provides a detailed account of Leo Frank's lynching.
For a much clearer picture of the trial testimony, read the elusive Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (BOE, 1913) for the official version of the trial testimony. Compare the American State Trials Volume X 1918 version of the BOE with the official record of the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence (1913) to see what was left out (the juiciest stuff) from the American State Trials Volume X, 1918.
3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank
(Available here on www.Archive.org
). Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial on August 22nd, 23rd, and 25th of 1913 (the 24th was Sunday). Very few libraries in the United States have original copies of this books. There has been an effort over the last 100 years to steal and destroy the remaining copies so as to suppress Hugh Dorsey's closing arguments and peroration.
This excellent book is required reading to see how the prosecutor Hugh Dorsey in sales vernacular: "closed", a Jury panel of 13 men, made up of a judge with a reputation for conscientiousness, along with a jury of 12 men.
On appeals Leo Frank's defense team submitted a petition to judge Roan on 107 grounds for why Leo Frank should get a new trial -- every single ground was rejected with an explanation on October 31, 1913. Judge Roans rejection of each and every one of the 107 grounds put before him, causes most 20th and 21st century neutral observers to realize the judge's appeasing oral remarks to his former law-partner Luther Rosser about questions of Leo Frank's "innocence or guilt" were nothing more of a business courtesy, than an expression of doubt.
At a later time after state appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court failed, Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hill on March 7th, 1914, scheduled Leo Frank to hang on his 30th birthday April 17, 1914, revealing the ultimate truth and strength of his verdict.
4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence.
Extremely rare, only 3 original copies exist, and they are held at the Georgia State Archive (The unabridged version is available on www.archive.org the version in American State Trials Volume X, 1918 is abridged).
Three Major Atlanta Dailies: The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst's Tabloid Yellow Journalism), The most relevant issues center around April 28th to August 27th 1913.
5. Atlanta Constitution Newspaper:
The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trail, Appeals, Shanking and Lynching of Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Newspaper from 1913 to 1915.
6. The Atlanta Georgian newspaper:
This selection is covering the Leo Frank Case from April though August, 1913.
7. The Atlanta Journal Newspaper
, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to the Leo Frank Case:
Leo Frank confirms in a jailhouse interview that he might have been in the men's toilet in the metal room (shockingly the prosecution's theory where the murder occurred) at the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m.
Link: Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview
8. Tom Watson's Jeffersonian and Watson's Magazine: Watson's Magazine, January 1915
, Watson's Magazine, March 1915
; Watson's Magazine, August 1915
, Watson's Magazine, September 1915
, and Watson's Magazine, October of 1915
. (Available here on www.Archive.org). Tom Watson's best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in August and September of 1915. Watson's five works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with superb reasoning. Originals of these magazines are extremely rare and very difficult to find.
1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case
. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Newspaper
9. The Tom E. Watson Digital Papers Archive, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:
Tom W. Brown
10. Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank, By Tom W. Brown
, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982. (despite its errors - like mentioning Mary Phagan had bitemarks on her - it is otherwise a great analysis).
Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1913, 1914):
11. Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records